debate on some rule changes

[Pellaken]

going by the new rules about rule changes, here is a thread about debating some rule changes. I placed 2 in here for saving time.

Ammending the rules: 2B

I -Pellaken- move, seconded by...
I -the deputy military leader- move, seconded by the
deputy expansion leader, that we now take into
consideration the changing of the rules. I propose that
we change:

Section B Point 5
to be changed to now read:
"The President may procede playing multiple turns which
may not exceed 30 turns, and can end earlier at the
Presidents descression. "

this removes the un-needed talk about what to do on the
first turn.

I also propose the entire constitution be spell checked, I noticed a few errors


Rule Change: H2

I propose that we change rule H-2, "the chain of
command" to now read:
"President
Vice President
City Planner Leader
Science Leader
Military Leader
Trade Leader
Expansion Leader
Diplomacy Leader
Deputy City Planner Leader
Deputy Science Leader
Deputy Military Leader
Deputy Trade Leader
Deputy Expansion Leader
Deputy Diplomacy Leader
MOD Liasion"


This would lower my powers, but I belive its needed as
this is roughley equavalient to thier respective workload.
in the real wold, the Sec. of State does way more then
the science leader, a position that dosent exist, but in
the world of Civ II, things dont tend to work out that
way.

 

[Pellaken]

the change to 2b is simple. I dont expect anyone to have ANY reason in hell to disagree with it. the other words in it are just for what to do on the first turn. next game perhaps we will use it, but all the first turn things should be placed somewhere seperate.

the other change is a little more conterversial.
but I think it would be good. it assigns jobs due to workload. but I think it would be somewhat of a reward to those that take the higher-end jobs

just be glad I dident try to repeal the "no parties" clause

fine print:Pellaken does not in any way support the repealing of the no parties clause, and is no suggesting it. therefore, anyone that wants to use that statement to say the Pellaken is trying to legalise parties will be thrown into eternal damnation and will burn forever in the flames that burn but do not comsume!!

 

[CornMaster]

First, a note on the Chain of Command. I didn't create it because of the level or work that the person must do.

It was actually designed to move the more suitable people into the position....before the less suitable people. A Diplomacy Leader would have virtually all the skills a President would have. (As a profile of the position...not the actual person.) And that's how I made my decisions.

However....I'm not against the order changing on what others see fit, however....your ranking by workload is inacruate. As the game progresses the work loads will change, and the people will be no more or less suited to the position.

Second, I will speel ckeck teh constitutin in 1 munute.

Third, I also disagree with your other preposed rule change. The first turn report is ESSENTIAL!!!!! The President could make a huge error about city placement, or hut popping, and kill us off right away. I think the Democracy should be much louder and more active in the beginning of the game...to get us off to the proper start.

I have to voice my opinion STRONGLY against your 2b change.

 

[duke o' york]

It might be just me who thinks this, but I feel it ought to be said anyway. I am getting sick of Pellaken's constant attempts to alter the way things work here. He seems obsessed with politics, and with the introduction of as much bureaucracy as he can possibly manage. This sort of thing may delight his much-vaunted youth parliament, but it leaves me cold. This game is primarily for fun. If you want to introduce changes then the best time would be between games. By this I mean games, not just presidencies. Once we see the notice telling us that we have achieved mankind's greatest dream by flying colonists to Alpha Centauri (it's something like that anyway) or that we have succeeded in crushing all the opposing civs then we can give ourselves a hearty pat on the back and then consider improvements to the way we played. But can we leave things be for the moment please?

 

[Dell19]

Where do governors come in your chain of command? I guess we are technically deputy city planners although our responsiblities have been increased.

 

[Pellaken]

CMaster, to your responce to H2 {CoC}
I think the City Planner is a much important position. perhaps if not making him second you can bump him up a place or 2?

next Duke. In any system, changes may be needed. None of these changes affect gameplay in a major way. CornMaster proposed this as a way to change rules, so I am doig this. Eventually, I hope to see political parties become legal. I therefore proposed my way of making laws possible. AoA closed it however, he said that I cant limit the powers of Moderators. cause I KNOW for a fact that if I propose it to be changed, that AoA or CMaster will close it up. EVEN IF more then half of the people feel that it should be done. saying this sytem is a democracy is a joke. if we cannot limit moderators from not doing this, then this is a dictatorship. I dont want to make parties legal now, but in 30-60 days I might want to. when I try, I know it will be closed, and I blamed. we will never know if it would have passed cause it would be closed before I even had the attempt. perhaps there are other rules someone disagrees with. CMaster proposed a rule change, the "anarchy" clause affedting the name and flag of the naion. in my opinion it was usless, and a waste of time, but we let democracy handle it, and dispite the fact I voted against it, it passed. This is what the basis of democracy is about. before the american revoluition, the USA was a democracy... one like the one we have here. where only certain things were allowed to be voted on. it was only when the rules {laws} of the nation were allowed to be changed by a vote, were things really democratic. I am just wanting to stick with this game. in any system there are politics involved. there are many who like politics. some, like me, find it fun. and if you dont like that I dont know what I can tell you. eathier way, what I am doing is not wrong, and there is no way you can tell me so. in short, I am right and I know I am.

back to CMaster, about B5
things affecting the first turn are important. THEY ARE VITAL!!!!! but.... the constitution is not the palce for them. atleast not B5. I am not proposing we elimante it altogethor, only that we move all first-turn things elsewhere. perhaps to a secion of its own, or to a list of precedures on what to DO on a first turn.

in general:
do you guys think/hope/expect we will play another democratic game? I have a bunch of great ideas on how to play one I'd like to test out, if I only thought I could get it through. if you guys want to hear them, I can post the entire lost of rules up, and you can see which ones you like/dont like, and perhaps even adopt part of them into the system. I only ask you to have an open mind. like Democrats and Republicans... both say they will make you rich. lets look at it: {EXTREMLEY basic way of looking at things}
Democrats will raise your taxes, build new roads, which will save you money on gas, and make you rich!
Republicans will lower your taxes, so you can buy a new car, which will save you money on gas, and make you rich!
in truth, both systems will make you rich. if we had 100 years of only Republicans or only Democrats the economey would work just as well with eathier. of course, each would have strengts and weaknesses. a Democratic government would be weak in the corporate sector, while a Republican one would be weak in the rich-poor balance. perhaps there is alteast one thing I have in my head that canbe usefull... anyone wanna test that theory out?

 

[CornMaster]

Originally posted by Pellaken
CMaster, to your responce to H2 {CoC}
I think the City Planner is a much important position. perhaps if not making him second you can bump him up a place or 2?

The City Planner has become a much more active position then I first anticipated. But as I said, I didn't make the list based on activity. I made it based on suitablilty. However, the City Planner has headed a few good decisions and may be more suitable then I first anticipated. Thus with more support I'm sure a revised Chain of Command could be approved. I suggest people propose revised lists, then I can have them all in a poll. And when you suggest a list. The President is always first. Vice president always second. MOD liaison always last, and the deputies mirror the leaders. What I'm trying to say is that you only need to list the department heads.

back to CMaster, about B5
things affecting the first turn are important. THEY ARE VITAL!!!!! but.... the constitution is not the palce for them. atleast not B5. I am not proposing we elimante it altogethor, only that we move all first-turn things elsewhere. perhaps to a secion of its own, or to a list of precedures on what to DO on a first turn.

Not a bad idea...lets see how others support it.

do you guys think/hope/expect we will play another democratic game?

I hope so...and I hope our command structure and constitution as well as hard work will be the corner stone of future games!!

 

[Pellaken]

well. I am ALWAYS willing to compromise.

Proposal A, a little stubborn:

President
Vice President
City Planner Leader
Diplomacy Leader
Military Leader
Expansion Leader
Trade Leader
Science Leader
MOD Liasion

Proposal B, I dont really want it... but it might be the only thing that others will accept

President
Vice President
Diplomacy Leader
City Planner Leader
Military Leader
Expansion Leader
Trade Leader
Science Leader
MOD Liasion

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

do you guys think/hope/expect we will play another democratic game?

I'm sure of it ,i will alway's support it anyway's.This first game is an actual experimenting game.
The next democracy game will probably be in civIII or a game in multiplayer.The way it is now the democracy game is very basic for the moment.Then again it only exists for 2 month's.Once we'll have played or first game ,and are moving to multiplayer or civIII (or civIII multiplayer maybe then (wich should be sweet)) ,the game will give us much more option's ,and the game will be much more refined. (the manual and rule thread should consiste of a mere 5 page's at that point )

Anyway i see a good future for this game.It's not perfect yet ,but we have some bright mind's on this site ,so i have no worry's.

 

[Dell19]

I would hope that we will move onto Civ 3 for our next democracy game and if there was enough demand then we could create a multiplayer game with computer civs where two or three civs were controlled by us. These Civs would be conrolled by different groups and have their own separate forum that only members can view. Although this idea would very much depend on whether we would have double the demand.

 

[CornMaster]

I think we would have enough players...I mean just look at the Civ 3 boards, but I don't think the players will be dedicated enough and if we had multiple teams.....several would probably go under (at 50 per team) Unless we ran the game where the members ran the government...then you only need like 10 members per team.....but then it's not a fun either. (I can explain that more in the future if the idea is considered)

I won't be participating in the next one....maybe as MOD Liaison, if they have one (New Cabinet) but we will have to wait and see.

 

[Pellaken]

why do we have to face eachother? we can take on apolyton in a democratic game. we'd have experince on how to run one, too

perhaps someone should go over there and convince some members to come over here, make an account, and try the game out. perhaps we should visit other civ sites too, and if we can get enough support, we can make a website dedcated to the democracy game alone {CMaster, you have a nice website and forum...} then get it up and posted on civ3.com after a year or so, we can make a lotsa player game. like 16 maybe even. we would need to reform the consitution though... the current system works well for a minimum of about 10 more people then we currentley have, {we've already recogonized we have lack of people} to about a max of 100-150 people. after that, we'd need more government

 

[Ohwell]

Hmmm... Great Ideas I see here! Multiplayer democracy game... I was thinking about that myself... It would be awesome! TF could make 2 or three forums, one for each tribe, and only members could view it! There could be another forum for visitors to look at, where all members could post about their progress to get people to join! That would be so cool!

But, I think we should try it with Civ2 first, many of the civ3 players don't seem to dedicated, and many of the regulars here don't even have Civ 3.

So, I think my Idea and all yours ideas would be really fun. A multiplayer democracy game...

 

[Kev]

A great idea of playing human teams against other human teams. Logistically, I'm wondering how this would work.

I've never played multi, but most "typical" multiplayer games are played on the net - is that correct? Would it be too time consuming to have our presidents go onto the net where just one side would make some moves and then have the other president contact his "cabinet"?

I was wondering if there was a "hotseat" option. Where instead of leaving the chair for the next player we could just email the saved game (or post it with a zip file) back and forth. Sort of what we do with succession games...

Again, not too sure how logistics play into it, and I guess we really won't have to worry about it for a while yet.

 

[Pellaken]

well FIRST we go about creating game ideas, THEN we go about worring about logistics

game ideas:
how will we get that many people to join?
perhaps we should change the rules to make a game possible with less people?
perhaps each tribe would operate under different rules, AKA, a prime minister as opposed to a president for one maybe, with toally different powers?

persoally, I have some ideas on how to make a democratic game work, and would be willing to chair a tribe untill the first election. My system would work with very few people. 13 is the total number that I currentley envision. it wouldent be a "real" democracy though... then again CMaster has his own ideas on how to make a democratic game that we DONT use in this one... I am sure others have ideas too. This game may take 1 or 2 years to play out. perhaps in august we should debate weather or not to end this, "test" game and begin a mulitplayer game...

just som ideas

 

[CornMaster]

Originally posted by Pellaken
perhaps in august we should debate weather or not to end this, "test" game and begin a mulitplayer game...

End the game!?!?!?

Me: This game will end when we take over the world!!!
Other Guy: But that will ge us killed!!!
Me: Or we will die trying.

 

[jomey]

perhaps in august we should debate weather or not to end this, "test" game and begin a mulitplayer game...

Test Game
cough cough splutter splutter!!!

Just think how much work has gone into this game and we haven't even had a single battle yet. The real fun is about to start and you're talking about ending it !!

 

[Zwelgje]

For me the game has just begun too!
Here is a new citizen of united fanatica.

 

[Pellaken]

GUYS! I ment end the game in august or december, not today. we are nowhere near being a "test" we need more advancement, more cities, more problems, etc...